Lie Direct Again

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 370, 2 June 1928, Page 9

Lie Direct Again

ALDERMAN AND ARNOTT

Sydney Graft Blame

JUST as Alderman Green gave the lie direct to Mr. Silas V. Maling, before the Sydney Royal Commission, so Alderman Holdsworth said the statements of Mr. Arthur Arnott, manager for Babcock and Wilcox, Limited, were a deliberate lie. (United P.A. —By Telegraph — Copyright)

SYDNEY, Friday. The Royal Commission which is investigating allegations that £IO,GOO was remitted to Sydney to reward aldermen and officials for letting a contract, sat again yesterday. Mi-. William Holds worth, who was formerly an alderman from 1918 until December, 1927, said he was now an hotelkeeper. He owned no property, and had accumulated no profits. He had only been able to make his income meet his expenditure. His wife had saved money, principally out of liis salary, when he was a member of Parliament. She also owned property. ■Witness denied that Mr. Arthur Arnott, attorney in Australia for Babcock and Wilcox, Ltd., had ever given him a penny. In reply to Mr. A. B. Shand, K.C., counsel for the Crown Solicitor, he said he knew about the allegations of graft. He declared it had been going on for the past 30 years—much more so when the Civic Reform Party was in power in the council than when Labour held the reins—but witness had always kept himself clean and clear of suspicion. He also denied that he had ever telephoned to Mr. Arnott or that he had ever had a conversation with Mr. Arnott about money. CHARGE AGAINST ARNOTT It was a deliberate lie for Mr. Arnott to say witness had asked for £I,OOO, and that Mr. Arnott had asked him to take £SOO. The only reason he could give for Mr. Arnott fabricating such a story was that Mr. Arnott wanted the money for himself.

Mr. Shand asked witness whether Mr. Arnott had told him that Mr. Maling had advised him not to make a payment to witness because he would get his share with the others. Mr. Holdsworth replied: Never in his life did he utter those words to me, or anything like them. Witness said his idea was that Mr. Arnott represented to his firm that he had to pay out the money, and that he kept it himself. At the time the Labour Party in the City Council gave the contract to Babcock and Wilcox, it could not have given it to anybody else. It would not have dared to do so. The Trades Hall would not have allowed it. MRS. GREEN’S EVIDENCE Further evidence was given by Mrs. Green, wife of Mr. Frank Green, a former alderman. She denied that her home had been thoroughly renovated in 1926. She admitted that she had had some improvements made, but said she could not remember the names of the firms who carried out the work. She also denied that she had a separate banking account in her maiden name. Witness said she had asked her husband whether he had anything to do with the £10,600 payment, and he had replied that he was not mixed up with . it. She might have thought there was graft in connection with the £10,600.

The inquiry was adjourned until Tuesday.